Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMAKRISHNAN versus DEVASSY, S/O. PONMANY ANTHONY ANTHONY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAMAKRISHNAN v. DEVASSY, S/O. PONMANY ANTHONY ANTHONY - WP(C) No. 20652 of 2006(H) [2007] RD-KL 13170 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20652 of 2006(H)

1. RAMAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DEVASSY, S/O. PONMANY ANTHONY ANTHONY,
... Respondent

2. ANTO, S/O. PONMANY DEVASSY, -DO- -DO-.

3. BHAGYAN, S/O.CHERAMPARAMBIL RAMAKRISHNAN

For Petitioner :SRI.T.R.RAJAN

For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.20652 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated: 31st July, 2007



JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is no longer defective as there is appearance for respondents 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.890/01 filed by respondents 1 and 2. The third respondent is the 2nd defendant in the suit which is one for recovery of amounts allegedly due to the plaintiffs on the basis of an agreement dated 14.12.1996 executed by the petitioner and another agreement dated 28.3.1998 executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the plaintiffs. O.S.Nos.3419/99 and 3421/99 were filed against the 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition and others by M/s.Guild Kuries and Loans Pvt. Ltd. for the amounts allegedly due to them under a chitty transaction. In those suits the 2nd respondent herein filed application under Order VIIIA of the C.P.C. claiming that the petitioner in the Writ Petition be impleaded as third party liable to indemnify and contribute to him in the event of decree being passed. The basis of the claim under Order VIIIA was the agreement dated 28.3.1998 which is the basis of the claim in the present suit also. In the claim under Order VIIIA the petitioner filed written statement raising contention that the agreement is not valid W.P.C.No.20652/06 - 2 - and genuine and that it has been caused to be executed by exerting coercion and threat with the help of police and also that it is not supported by consideration. The court held that the agreement dated 28.3.1998 which was marked as Ext.B6 was not a genuine document and that it was executed under threat and turned down the claim. Against that judgment the 2nd respondent has filed appeals A.S.No.304/04 and A.S.No.261/02 which are pending before the District Court. Ext.P7 I.A. was filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for staying the suit till the disposal of the appeals on the ground that the matters directly and substantially in issue in the present suit were substantially and directly in issue in that suit. The learned Subordinate Judge has under Ext.P8 order dismissed the application stating various reasons including the reason of delay and the reason that other suits have already been disposed of and are pending only in appeals.

3. I have heard the submissions of Mr.T.R.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Sreekumar(Chelur), learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

4. Having regard to the submissions and the documents placed on record, I am of the view that there is justification for staying the W.P.C.No.20652/06 - 3 - trial and further proceedings in the present suit till the appeals are disposed of since it is obvious that the decision in the appeals will certainly have a bearing on the decision to be taken in the present suit. Even if Section 10 C.P.C. may not apply in stricto senso, I invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution and stay the trial of the suit O.S.No.890 of 2001 on the files of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Thrissur for a period of four months from today. In the meanwhile the District Judge, Thrissr who is presently in seisin of A.S.Nos.304/04 and 261/02 is directed to hear and dispose of those appeals at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.